Wikipedia talk:Trusted Users

Huh?
What's the point of this page? Johnleemk | Talk 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Delete it if you want. -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 16:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand. You created it. What purpose does this serve, exactly? Johnleemk | Talk 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It was supposed to help make a new status like "Admin" or "Beaurocrat" or "Steward" or "CheckUser", but I see nobody uses it. -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 17:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe because it was never publicised. Even then, what purpose would this new status serve then? Johnleemk | Talk 17:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. To be a requirement for RfA's. 2. To be a whitelist for certian vandal-fighting tools. 3. To help approve people to use certain tools (VandalProof, AWB, etc..). 4. To help users know if somebody is trusted. 5. etc.... -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 17:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how many people use this site? It would take years to get everyone that is trusted through an RfA like process... Making people go through 2 RfA's doesn't improve anything. Vandal-fighting/automated tools work fine as they are. I can't see why anyone would need to know if someone is trusted - assume good faith unless you have a specific reason not to, not being on a list is not a specific reason. It looks like you're trying to fix a problem that is not there with a very clunky solution... --Tango 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete it if you want. I really don't care. -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 18:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

..."Huh?" - "Yep."
The proposal is not so pointless as it may seem. In the case you didn't notice, we already have several levels of "trustedness": admins, anon users (who are not allowed to start an article) and we have semiprotection with its built-in "truct threshold", and we have users on probation (read: not very trusted yet). Also, in some e-mailing systems there is a notion of "trusted sender", so the guy didn't get the idea out of the blue.

But clearly the proposal is undercooked. `'mikka (t) 23:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice
This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 11 June 2006. The result was No consensus/default keep. The proposal was rejected unanimously. Xoloz 02:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)